Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

P1 fails because there are numerous alternatives that can act as a grounds for objective moral values and duties by theist own definition, which is something grounded in a metaphysical theory of everything. For example, instead of being grounded in theism objective morality may be grounded in deism, pantheism, naturalistic pantheism (i.e. atheism), pandeism, acosmism, panpsychism, transtheism, henotheism, polytheism, pastafarianism, or an evil god, just to name a few.

Atheists/scientists can assert an objective basis for morality grounded in Naturalistic Pantheism as a super law of nature or product of a super law, simply one we have not yet discovered. Therefore, like theism, science is also capable of asserting explanations for any apparent objective phenomena such as an objective basis for: morality, purpose, meaning, value, consciousness, freewill, intelligibility, rationality, math, logic, origin of the universe, etc…

2. Response to the Historicity of the bible

If I told you I saw a real living breathing dog, then you should believe me.However, if I told you I saw a real living breathing unicorn, you should not believe me.

The difference between these two claims is that dogs have an implicit empirical basis, whereas unicorns do not. Meaning for dog there exists many things about them that we can verify in the present such as their taxonomy, bones, genetic makeup, chemical composition, what they are allergic to, etc..; that I simply haven’t mentioned in the argument, i.e. implicit.

Because I have made an empirical claim about the world, it requires empirical evidence that we can verify in the present. The conceptual evidence of my testimony is insufficient to justify the claim unicorns exist because we cannot verify conceptual evidence in the present and you would have to accept something in my memory/imagination is an accurate representation of reality. Examples of conceptual evidence are testimony modern or historical, personal experience, intuition, anecdote, etc.

Therefore, to justify the empirical claim unicorns exist would require empirical evidence of unicorns, where the conceptual evidence of my testimony is only sufficient to justify belief is was a delusion, misinterpretation, imagination, fabrication, hallucination, etc… all conceptual conclusions about my mind.

Historical claims work the same way, if the claims already have an implicit empirical basis then they are, prima facie, reasonable to accept. If they do not have an implicit empirical basis than an explicit basis must be provided before they are reasonable to accept.

Therefore, miracles, magic, mythical creatures, the supernatural, paranormal, aliens, etc… would all need an explicit empirical basis before they were reasonable to accept based on historical testimony/conceptual evidence. However, it is reasonable to believe such claims to be delusions, misconceptions, invention, confabulation, or imagination as those are conceptual conclusions and therefore only require conceptual evidence such as historical testimony.

Yes i have had the opportunity to talk with many theists including professional apologists and my approach has worked really well as a means to clearly explain the atheist position in a way that makes sense from the thiest perspective without falling into the apologist trained responses. this causes them to really think about the issue...

It has worked so well I would really love to start doing public debates on the topic, because i think my ideas can even stump WLC and other big apologists.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

P1 fails because there are numerous alternatives that can act as a grounds for objective moral values and duties. For example, instead of being grounded in theism objective morality may be grounded in deism, pantheism, naturalistic pantheism (i.e. atheism), pandeism, acosmism, panpsychism, transtheism, henotheism, polytheism, pastafarianism, or an evil god, just to name a few.

I think you would first need to identify or at least claim an objective set or standard of moral values. Otherwise, I dont see how any part of this is helpful.

TJump wrote:Atheists/scientists can assert an objective basis for morality grounded in Naturalistic Pantheism as a super law of nature or product of a super law, simply one we have not yet discovered. Therefore, like theism, science is also capable of asserting explanations for any apparent objective phenomena such as an objective basis for: morality, purpose, meaning, value, consciousness, freewill, intelligibility, rationality, math, logic, origin of the universe, etc…

Don't atheists do this all the time?

TJump wrote:2. Response to the Historicity of the bible

If I told you I saw a real living breathing dog, then you should believe me.However, if I told you I saw a real living breathing unicorn, you should not believe me.

The difference between these two claims is that dogs have an implicit empirical basis, whereas unicorns do not. Meaning for dog there exists many things about them that we can verify in the present such as their taxonomy, bones, genetic makeup, chemical composition, what they are allergic to, etc..; that I simply haven’t mentioned in the argument, i.e. implicit.

Because I have made an empirical claim about the world, it requires empirical evidence that we can verify in the present. The conceptual evidence of my testimony is insufficient to justify the claim unicorns exist because we cannot verify conceptual evidence in the present and you would have to accept something in my memory/imagination is an accurate representation of reality. Examples of conceptual evidence are testimony modern or historical, personal experience, intuition, anecdote, etc.

Therefore, to justify the empirical claim unicorns exist would require empirical evidence of unicorns, where the conceptual evidence of my testimony is only sufficient to justify belief is was a delusion, misinterpretation, imagination, fabrication, hallucination, etc… all conceptual conclusions about my mind.

Historical claims work the same way, if the claims already have an implicit empirical basis then they are, prima facie, reasonable to accept. If they do not have an implicit empirical basis than an explicit basis must be provided before they are reasonable to accept.

Therefore, miracles, magic, mythical creatures, the supernatural, paranormal, aliens, etc… would all need an explicit empirical basis before they were reasonable to accept based on historical testimony/conceptual evidence. However, it is reasonable to believe such claims to be delusions, misconceptions, invention, confabulation, or imagination as those are conceptual conclusions and therefore only require conceptual evidence such as historical testimony.

I think the reason why you keep talking about unicorns is because you are unable to talk about what you would consider as evidence or an "empirical basis" for the existience of god. Am I right?

“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy

I was not arguing that IS an objective morality, i was arguing that if we accept theists definition of objective morality, i.e. something grounded in a metaphysical theory of everything like those i listed.... then anyone can make up a model of morality that qualifies as objective just like theirs.

No the kind of morality atheists and scientist argue for does not qualify as objective by the theists definition, therefore it will not ever compel them. This is way my method of adopting there definition is better.

the reason i use unicorns as an example is to show the same critera applies ot all things that lack an empirical basis: miralces, magic, mythical creatures, the paranormal, supernatural or UFO's.

"...you are unable to talk about what you would consider as evidence or an "empirical basis" for the existence of god. Am I right?" <-- i dont know what this combination of words means.

If i died and went to heaven and met god that would be empirical evidence of God.

I was not arguing that IS an objective morality, i was arguing that if we accept theists definition of objective morality, i.e. something grounded in a metaphysical theory of everything like those i listed.... then anyone can make up a model of morality that qualifies as objective just like theirs.

I understand what you mean. You would still need to at least make claim to what objective morals exist and ideally define the source of thier "outside" standard of morality, even if you are only pretending. Without doing so, you would only obfuscate yourself into a nonsensical position.

TJump wrote:No the kind of morality atheists and scientist argue for does not qualify as objective by the theists definition.

Compared with Athiesism, I think it's safe to say the Christians own science. You can argue that this is because throughout history, there were more theists than atheists. I guess.

TJump wrote:If i died and went to heaven and met god that would be empirical evidence of God.

Well that really isn't helpful, since now of us are dead. However, dying and meeting god would show that your methods of determining what we should and should not believe are probably somewhat flawed but by then it would be "too late".

“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy

Compared with Athiesism, I think it's safe to say the Christians own science. You can argue that this is because throughout history, there were more theists than atheists. I guess.

That's just poor reasoning. In the last 2 thousand years, there were more centuries in Europe where Christianity was obligatory and enforced through physical punishment and death than there have been centuries in which that's not the case. Yours is a non causal correlation.

Difficult for you to explain under your paradigm; the speed at which the sciences have flourished is negatively correlated with the power Christianity has over society. Thus, as Christianity has lost its former control, so science has burgeoned. The last 4 centuries has seen Christianity fractured into splinter groups, lost its political power, its ownership of land and wealth, and people are free to reject Christianity publicly without fear of violence or penury - coinciding with that, science has actually increased in momentum century by century, decade by decade, year by year. I don't actually need to make a case that they're causally connected, because under your paradigm this shouldn't be the case, in fact it should be the opposite. The moment of greatest scientific achievement should have been when Christianity had the greatest control over society, and a society's rejection of Christianity should result in their ability to do science notably diminishing.

But regardless of all that, to make your case you'd have to show how Christianity is intrinsic to the discoveries or applications of science. You're not a fundie, so I think you'd find it a tad difficult to do that. Again in contradiction, what we actually see is that some of the most productive science is still challenged on Christian doctrinal grounds long after it's been established beyond credible doubt, i.e. the theory of evolution by natural selection.

TJump wrote:If i died and went to heaven and met god that would be empirical evidence of God.

Well that really isn't helpful, since now of us are dead. However, dying and meeting god would show that your methods of determining what we should and should not believe are probably somewhat flawed but by then it would be "too late".

I think you may well have missed his point.

But leaving that aside, dying and not meeting God would mean it was also "too late" to learn what the truth actually was.

Sparhafoc wrote:But leaving that aside, dying and not meeting God would mean it was also "too late" to learn what the truth actually was.

You have a point. But you probably would not want to live in Heaven forever with me and God, even if you had emperical knowledge of his existience before you died. You would rather live in a place with Hillary Clinton, perverts, and people who kill unborn childeren. Having emperical evidence of Gods existience wont change that. Right?

“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy

thenexttodie wrote: I understand what you mean. You would still need to at least make claim to what objective morals exist and ideally define the source of thier "outside" standard of morality, even if you are only pretending. Without doing so, you would only obfuscate yourself into a nonsensical position.

I'm not sure what you mean... if you have a compass that you say points north, and i shake it and it point in a different random direction everytime i shake it, then the compass cant be used as a guide. It makes no difference is north exists or not, i can still demonstrate the compass is broken. This is what i am doing with the moral argument.

thenexttodie wrote: Compared with Athiesism, I think it's safe to say the Christians own science. You can argue that this is because throughout history, there were more theists than atheists. I guess.

That is a genetic fallacy. The source of an idea is not the same as the one employing it better. Do theist also own chicken farming because there were more theists doing it?

thenexttodie wrote: Well that really isn't helpful, since now of us are dead. However, dying and meeting god would show that your methods of determining what we should and should not believe are probably somewhat flawed but by then it would be "too late".

I did not understand your statement, and that was the best guess i had as how to answer.

thenexttodie wrote:You have a point. But you probably would not want to live in Heaven forever with me and God, even if you had emperical knowledge of his existience before you died. You would rather live in a place with Hillary Clinton, perverts, and people who kill unborn childeren. Having emperical evidence of Gods existience wont change that. Right?

Just to check.

When you write such things... do you have a smile on your face? Are you trying to have some fun with me, and expect me to find the same source of amusement as you?

Or do you appear rabid and deranged involuntarily?

It's hard to tell - sometimes you seem a pleasant, affable, even caring chap... then you drop these inane one liners into random conversations and seem intent on spitefully portraying other people as evil for no other reason that they don't share your opinions on things.

Perhaps if you were on the right side of these questions, you would be able to formulate a more coherent and compelling response which didn't necessarily devolve to ad hominem. Have you considered that?

Sparhafoc wrote:It's hard to tell - sometimes you seem a pleasant, affable, even caring chap... then you drop these inane one liners into random conversations and seem intent on spitefully portraying other people as evil for no other reason that they don't share your opinions on things.

This is perfectly normal fundie behavior. I have witnessed it in irl and on internet many times. It's like they are being possessed or something.

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."

When you write such things... do you have a smile on your face? Are you trying to have some fun with me, and expect me to find the same source of amusement as you?

Or do you appear rabid and deranged involuntarily?

It's hard to tell - sometimes you seem a pleasant, affable, even caring chap... then you drop these inane one liners into random conversations and seem intent on spitefully portraying other people as evil for no other reason that they don't share your opinions on things.

Perhaps if you were on the right side of these questions, you would be able to formulate a more coherent and compelling response which didn't necessarily devolve to ad hominem. Have you considered that?

Take it personal, Sparhafoc. You should be happy someone actually takes the time to be rabid and deranged when it concerns matters of your immortal soul.

Virtually every claim of Emperical Evidence in the Bible resulted in disbelief and hatred against God. I think the main reason for this is that people like to pretend they know what they are talking about.

You just told me in another thread that it is wrong for me to call unborn babies "unborn babies" and then said we need people who are willing to kill them because it will result in us having more liberty. That is a rather bold statement. But you do not know if it is true. You are not even able to calculate how much your own actions have hurt other people. Neither am I.

To me, it stands to reason that God is able to know what kind of person you are, without having to constantly do miracles for everyone. And He would know if you would rather live forever with Hillary Clinton and perverts and people like those who goto pro-choice and pro LGBTQ rallies instead of living forever with me and him.

“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy

thenexttodie wrote:To me, it stands to reason that God is able to know what kind of person you are, without having to constantly do miracles for everyone. And He would know if you would rather live forever with Hillary Clinton and perverts and people like those who goto pro-choice and pro LGBTQ rallies instead of living forever with me and him.

LOL

Ahh yes, I remember this as a typical ad-hoc rationalization many Christians invoke to explain away why it is that atheists don't seem to be getting messages, seeing miracles, or receiving revelations from God all over the place, like Christians report they do. This is essentially the parable of Carl Sagan's invisible dragon in his garage all over again. But with God instead of the dragon.

When a reasonable, at-face-value interpretation of the evidence seems to indicate that there is no evidence for the thing in question (the invisible dragon, or God), the believer will offer some excuse, completely ad-hoc, for why we shouldn't count on that particular evidence to exist.

The person says they have a dragon in their garage and you go to confirm it. But you don't see a dragon there. And that's when the excuse-making starts.You expect to see a dragon, oh but it's invisible. (Same with God of course). You expect to hear the dragon, oh but it's inaudible. Maybe it should leave footprints? Oh but God (and the dragon) is incorporeal, no physical body. It should breathe fire so maybe we can use a thermal camera or thermometer? Oh but the fire is immaterial too.

... and so on and so forth as we go through the list of ways in which a thing that could reasonably be said to exist, should manifest some sort of detectable effect.

And so we come to the second-to-last exercise in excuse-making faith rationalizations: Oh but you see you can know that the Dragon (God) exists if you just believe it in your heart already and are willing to sycophanticly worship the dragon no matter what, then the Dragon will make it's existence known to you through personal revelation.

Then you inform the believer that you are not getting any revelation at all, and here is the final kicker: Oh but you see the dragon knows what's in your heart, so it's just hiding from you on purpose because the dragon wants a sycophant to worship it uncritically and submissively, and here you are demanding rational justification through evidence (or you don't wish to be a submissive sycophant that worships uncritically), demonstrating how perverted you are. And the dragon never reveals itself to people who "willingly rejects it".

It's just ad-hoc excuse making all the way down. It's not even supposed to be apologetic arguments designed to persuade the unbeliever to believe. No when we get to this level of the argument the believers are trying to convince themselves. This is for their own benefit, an argument to save their own faith from falsification and give them peace of mind in face of evidence they must somewhere recognize constitutes evidence against their belief.

With this final hand wave believers have made it impossible for themselves to ever discover if they are wrong about the character of God, and God's views on unbelievers, because in so far as God never seems to contact the unbeliever, the Christian will always be able to fall back on this completely ad-hoc and unfalsifiable excuse, that God is deliberately hiding and staying away because of some perceived failing by the unbeliever.

Whether God actually is like that they have no idea, or even if God exists, they are just making excuses to try to save their blind religious faith from real-world falsification. Of course, they'll just point to some old book where some passages are written that can be interpreted as detailing this same sort of excuse (essentially just demonstrating that ancient people's had this same argument, and religioust believers were making and writing down ad-hoc excuses back then too). So they'll just blindly believe what it says in the book without having any clue if it's true.

thenexttodie wrote: And He would know if you would rather live forever with Hillary Clinton and perverts and people like those who goto pro-choice and pro LGBTQ rallies instead of living forever with me and him.

Are you claiming to know that you will be with God forever in an afterlife? Did he tell you this, audibly? I have been led to believe by people such as yourself that expressing such an opinion is rather arrogant, and that (at least according to what some scriptural interpretations say) even someone like you will be judged and that you don't really know your destiny until you die and go before God.

thenexttodie wrote:Take it personal, Sparhafoc. You should be happy someone actually takes the time to be rabid and deranged when it concerns matters of your immortal soul.

No chap. Stop greasing your own pole. You don't give a flying fuck about that in the slightest. You're just using your faith as a stick to lash out at people to boost your own self-esteem. Seek help, because such behavior does not present you as being mentally healthy.

thenexttodie wrote:Virtually every claim of Emperical Evidence in the Bible resulted in disbelief and hatred against God. I think the main reason for this is that people like to pretend they know what they are talking about.

Well, I surely don't pretend to know what the fuck you're talking about.

thenexttodie wrote:You just told me in another thread that it is wrong for me to call unborn babies "unborn babies" and then said we need people who are willing to kill them because it will result in us having more liberty. That is a rather bold statement. But you do not know if it is true. You are not even able to calculate how much your own actions have hurt other people. Neither am I.

I know exactly how true it is because I am not a credulous fantasist living in a magico-mythical fantasy world where I conceive of the content of a handed down religious tradition from thousands of years ago to be the last fucking word in knowledge. Thus, I actually know what happens in embryogenesis because I bother to learn about shit rather than emote ineffectually and smugly at it.

Further, given your ability to manipulate and distort my argument, then it stands to reason you actually understand my argument in the first place, which in turn means that you have no fucking excuse for doing so. You're intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote. Why do you need to lie, thenexttodie? If you can only make points by lying about what other people have said, then it suggests to me that your own points have no fucking merit whatsoever.

thenexttodie wrote: To me, it stands to reason that God is able to know what kind of person you are, without having to constantly do miracles for everyone. And He would know if you would rather live forever with Hillary Clinton and perverts and people like those who goto pro-choice and pro LGBTQ rallies instead of living forever with me and him.

And the obvious issue is: even if you're right, you're still not fucking God, so perhaps you should shut your cake-hole and let your magic man in the sky worry about it.

Funny how you vicious religionists never apply your religious diktats to your own behavior, innit?

thenexttodie wrote: And He would know if you would rather live forever with Hillary Clinton and perverts and people like those who goto pro-choice and pro LGBTQ rallies instead of living forever with me and him.

Are you claiming to know that you will be with God forever in an afterlife? Did he tell you this, audibly? I have been led to believe by people such as yourself that expressing such an opinion is rather arrogant, and that (at least according to what some scriptural interpretations say) even someone like you will be judged and that you don't really know your destiny until you die and go before God.

Not only is the drunkard assuming he's got a free pass to gobble on the ineffable's cock for all eternity, he's also claiming to know that God will judge Hilary Clinton on par with perverts, which just shows how dangerously fundamentalist lunacy hops over the line into projecting political tribalist fantasies onto the dogma.

As for the notion that supporting LGBT rights makes you on par with perverts... for me, TNTD just went from what I had assumed to be a fairly reasonable person straight to Bernie level idiocy.